Taiwan is often compared to other countries, but never to Spain.
Yet the two countries have, in many ways, followed a similar path toward democracy. That makes the comparison interesting.
Both nations face a paradox: They successfully abolished dictatorship without erasing the illegality of the regime that preceded them. There was no revolution. No tyrant was toppled. No legitimate government in exile came back. They were reformed from the inside, and the people rolled with it, because, when you are finally free from oppression, technicalities matter little.
Let us break down the facts.
The elected, democratically legitimate government of the Spanish Republic was overthrown in 1939, when the Nationalist rebels of Francisco Franco declared victory. Taiwan was handed over to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) in 1945, and he asserted his power through force against the Taiwanese population. Both regimes received international diplomatic recognition.
Toward the end of his rule in 1969, Franco co-opted the heir of the former Spanish monarchy, Juan Carlos, as his designated successor. In Taiwan, Chiang’s son, former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), who had inherited the presidency, put Taiwan-born Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) first in the line of succession by appointing him vice president in 1984.
In both cases, the authoritarian ruler died, and the successor automatically inherited extensive powers: in 1975 for Juan Carlos (now king) and in 1988 for Lee.
In both cases, they relinquished those powers in favor of democracy, when they could easily have carried on as dictators.
Juan Carlos presided over the reforms that made Spain into the parliamentary democracy it is today. Lee put an end to the KMT’s dictatorship and called for elections. Both were praised for allowing their countries to embrace human rights and freedom without bloodshed.
However, both also came from within the authoritarian regimes that had buried these values for decades.
Taiwan and Spain share a lack of rupture between the oppressive regime and its democratic successor. Both still use the flag once associated with dictatorship.
The Spanish and Taiwanese enjoy freedom and human rights, and on a practical level, that is more important than symbolic correctness. However, it also means carrying a legacy of silence and real difficulty when it comes to transitional justice.
Juan Carlos and Lee navigated dangerous environments. They worked to bring democracy and freedom, but were careful not to provoke the authoritarian elements still in place — elements that could have destroyed the entire project if pushed too far.
We know Lee had to ensure hardliners would not depose him in the early years of his presidency. We saw Spain face a coup attempt in 1981, when old Francoists stormed the Spanish parliament. Juan Carlos and Lee could have been murdered by nostalgia-driven apparatchiks. They were not entirely free to do what they wanted.
However, both countries are now free. For most people, that is what matters.
However, those with personal scars are still grieving, and both countries still struggle with the weight of that legacy. Spain has its “pact of forgetting.” Taiwan is notorious for the difficulty it encounters in navigating transitional justice.
So, what to make of it?
The comparison has its limits. For one, Spain is not threatened by an external power. However, a country does not need to be entirely similar to Taiwan to offer meaningful perspective.
The point of this piece is not to offer a full-fledged analysis of what Taiwan can learn from Spain. That would require its own feature and a much more exhaustive investigation.
Rather, it is to remind readers that Taiwan should not be viewed in isolation. We too often make two mistakes: One is to compare Taiwan only to the usual cases (other Asian countries, or nations shaped by Cold War legacies); the other is to assume that Taiwan’s problems are unique and that no other country can offer inspiration.
Thinking outside the box is more fruitful. Many countries, including some that seem very different at first glance, have undergone similar transitions that can help enrich Taiwan’s ongoing democratic debate. If Taiwan needs anything today, it is precisely that: a broader, more global mindset.
Julien Oeuillet is a journalist in Taiwan. He is the founding editor of Indo-Pacific Open News. He also writes and produces radio and television programs for several English-language publications globally.
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS